David, Harold and all,
I am in agreement with both you, David and Harold as well.
It seems though, as you have pointed out before David, that the
DNSO NC is not. To me, as the SERVANTS of the DNSO
GA, this seems rather odd... So, as you suggest Harold, it
would be nice to say 'It is so", but
Harald and all,
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
At 16:00 28.11.99 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Harold and everybody else,
It was suggested some time ago after I did yet another review of the
ICANN Membership list, that as suggestion very similar was made
for ICANN to consider doing
Dennis and all,
I am glad you were able to get your problem finally addressed
properly. ;) It seems that MCI, yet again has several problems
that are systemic that they have yet to adequately deal with given
the fix that John need to provide for you. This however does not
excuse your posts
Javier and all,
Javier Rodriguez wrote:
Hi Patricio !
(Excuse a little moment all the english speaking fellows: Hola
Patricio!
un gusto saludarte y saber de ti, no es raro perderse en todo esto,
es
mucho mail y tratare de resumirte los puntos... ya en otra ocasion
ha
sucedido con 2 hermanos
Javier and all,
Javier Rodriguez wrote:
Jeff and all:
The accusations as you put it Javier are much more than just accusations
as you of course well know. I am a bit surprised that you phrased this
comment in this manner considering the private posts you, I and David
have exchanged on
Javier and all,
I personally believe that you would make an excellent and fair
"Watchdog", but one must remember that there is still SELECTIVE
CENSORSHIP going on on the DNSO mailing lists, as you know.
So in this light, I hope you will be able to get my posting privileges
restored, as you
Ben and all,
I can understand you concern here. In part I share it with you.
It would seem that the Federal Election Commission should be overseeing
this process. I am wondering why the ICANN/DNSO would not have
contacted them to insure that this election does not turn out to be
the
Ken and all,
I could not agree more with Ken's response here and I believe he
has evaluated this situation in terms of the truthful motivations,
correctly. I also believe that most of us already know this,
but there are some that do not have the guts to admit it...
Richard J. Sexton wrote:
Javier and all,
Here is Part 2, and an additional follow up for you children
that are still haveing a problem doing you own research on
finding a solution for your language Translation needs,
AGAIN...
Here is a URL that will provide you some
translation software and direct
Kathy and all,
Thank you for sharing this note with us, as I am sure it will be
helpful for some to get a idea anyway of how these meetings
were conducted and some ideas of what the ICANN membership
organization can or should be about.
In this light I have some comments and questions I
At 03:02 PM 11/20/99 -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
On Sat, 20 Nov 1999, Richard J. Sexton (At work) wrote:
Doesn't matter. At least we have COMPETITION in the domain registration
business. You're NO LONGER LOCKED IN and the STABILITY OF THE
INTERNET is no longer at risk.
The fact your
Patrick Greenwell wrote:
On Sat, 20 Nov 1999, Richard J. Sexton (At work) wrote:
Doesn't matter. At least we have COMPETITION in the domain registration
business. You're NO LONGER LOCKED IN and the STABILITY OF THE
INTERNET is no longer at risk.
The fact your domain dosn't work is
On Sun, Nov 21, 1999 at 07:39:34PM -0500, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
At 03:02 PM 11/20/99 -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
On Sat, 20 Nov 1999, Richard J. Sexton (At work) wrote:
Doesn't matter. At least we have COMPETITION in the domain registration
business. You're NO LONGER LOCKED IN and
Kent and all,
Kent's logic is again as usual, flawed. His conclusion doesn't follow.
We DON'T have competing REGISTRIES. What we have is
multiple REGISTRARS, with only one Registry. Hence his logic flaw.
Kent Crispin wrote:
On Sun, Nov 21, 1999 at 07:39:34PM -0500, Richard J. Sexton
Matt and all,
I am in agreement with you that the need for additional gTLD's
is evident and really not politically based, nor should it be twisted
to be viewed as such. However without the competition of additional
REGISTRIES along with the introduction of new gTLD's the addition
of JUST
On Sun, 21 Nov 1999, Kent Crispin wrote:
What can we conclude from this, class ?
Premise: Having many companies doesn't help service.
Conclusion 1: Competition doesn't work.
Conclusion 2: Multiple competing registries won't help service.
I see you picked your brain up at the
Dennis and all,
Thank you for passing this on to me Dennis. Much appreciated. I agree
it does seem rather odd/amazing that there is serious gaps in the DNSO list's
Archives. In one case the archives of the dnso council is "Hidden", as there
is and has not been a link from the DNSO main page
On Sat, 20 Nov 1999, Richard J. Sexton (At work) wrote:
Doesn't matter. At least we have COMPETITION in the domain registration
business. You're NO LONGER LOCKED IN and the STABILITY OF THE
INTERNET is no longer at risk.
The fact your domain dosn't work is a small price to pay.
How is
Patrick and all,
Well just for starters, NSI's Domains worked.
Patrick Greenwell wrote:
On Sat, 20 Nov 1999, Richard J. Sexton (At work) wrote:
Doesn't matter. At least we have COMPETITION in the domain registration
business. You're NO LONGER LOCKED IN and the STABILITY OF THE
Roberto and all,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kent,
I perfectly understand your reasoning, and to a certain extent I agree.
But I would like to raise a couple of issues.
You wrote:
The primary purpose of the "send everybody with N endorsers" approach
is not into reduce noise -- it is to
Bradley and all,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is me. [EMAIL PROTECTED] is David Jenson,
a completely different person as far as I am aware of! So you have
me a bit puzzled here. I believe that David can speak for himself though.
Now as to the three different E-Mail addresses Joe Baptista uses, you
John and all,
John C Klensin wrote:
I've just realized (being a bit slow) that a lot of the
frustration that has periodically filled the GA list with noise
and name-calling is due to the perception that the NC was
composed of people appointed by Board-authorized constituencies
and that
John and all,
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Wednesday, November 17, 1999, 13:41 -0800 Jeff Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the interests of fairness, the secretariat
should add everyone who has been excluded from the list within
the next month for antisocial behavior back into the
Kent and all,
I don't know that there were any "Fakes" as you put it at all. Maybe
you could elaborate on whom and how you justify this extraordinary
and exclamatory claim? Or are you possibly referring to the several
"Fake" subscribers that you had mentioned that you had subscribed
in one
Jonathan and all,
I don't know of any member that has "Forfeited" anything. If so, under
what pretense is this claim determined, and whom determined it? Such a
claim without being determined is just a comment intended to inflame an
already terrible and fraudulent situation that can without
Bradley and all,
To be sure that again the record is straight it has bee Bradley amongst
a very few of his ilk/cohorts that are responsible for the partial damage
that they have tried to inflict on the IDNO. Bradley's use of the term
"JDNO" is a good example of his viciousness and misleading
Peter and all,
No I think this is Just Randy being Randy, not a shill at all. Run in's with Randy
from many sectors of the Net are well known and fairly common. His prevailing
"Management style" is one of being disagreeable for the sake of being disagreeable.
This is pretty well documented.
Jean and all,
Without good process there can be no good substance. We all already
know that the DNSO and BoD elections held by the DNSO were
phony and fraudulent. That is now well documented.
Participation on the internet, means just that. Participation on the
Internet. Personal
Here we go again - more forgeries .. but what of censorship???
On Sun, 14 Nov 1999, Kent Crispin wrote:
Those of you whose mail clients use the "From: " header to report the
sender may have been fooled into thinking that the previous message,
apparently from me and quoting myself, actually
Roeland and all,
Although it would be better for Matt to use a more easily verifiable
E-mail address on this and likely any other mailing list, this does not
necessarily determine his identity. That is for him to do, and it appears
that he has done so in his SIG file. That should be
Richard and all,
Interesting case. But it is not unprecedented in recent months. To me
anyway this points up how poorly ICANN is managing it's SRS
registration system for registering Domain names and how the Whois
database and system has been compromised as a result.
One begins to wonder
David and all,
I agree it is rather despicable that the ICANN/DNSO seems bent on
practicing SELECTIVE CENSORSHIP or unable to properly manage
a mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED] amongst others) and is, as the ICANN
and the DOC is well aware of involved in fraudulent activities with respect
to
It would be easier if there was a synopsis at the beginning - it's
confusing.
--
J. Baptista Planet Communications Computing Facility
Voice/Fax (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033
http://www.pccf.net/
On Sat, 13
Dave and all,
Valid concerns here David. Thank you for presenting them to us.
I am sure that Becky Burr will also wish to thinks about them as well
or at least she should as she is the oversight for the continuing problems
that the ICANN and the DNSO are having here. Otherwise the problem
This is an interesting rationalization ... we censor the ga because we
don't know who you are. H ...
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 08:12:53 -0800
From: Roeland M.J. Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Javier Rodriguez' [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:
On Thu, 11 Nov 1999, Mark Jeftovic wrote:
It's fixed in 8.2.2PL3. It was already fixed before the advisory was
widely released.
Why don't you write your own dns resolver Joe, show us how it's done?
not my job. that's like asking a software critic to write the program.
How rude. Anyway
Joe and all,
Well I must admit you have a good point here Joe. Marks request,
however much in Jest it may be, is something like asking a software
critic to write code. But none the less Mark full well knows that
BindPlus (Ours) is already available. He just wants source code which
we rarely
All,
William Walsh has a long standing problem with FACTS. Of course
most of us know this already, so just take this post as a reminder...
William X. Walsh wrote:
On 11-Nov-99 Dinesh Nair wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:
fair representations. As a matter of fact,
On Thu, 11 Nov 1999, Craig Avnit wrote:
Since when is it vixies job to fix the bugs in BIND, before posting
such idiotic messages to the list read the license
irrelevant. every single issue of vixies software is buggy. It's
terrible. as for my providing fixes - not my department. i'm here
On 11-Nov-99 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 1999, Craig Avnit wrote:
Since when is it vixies job to fix the bugs in BIND, before posting
such idiotic messages to the list read the license
irrelevant. every single issue of vixies software is buggy. It's
terrible. as for my
On Thu, 11 Nov 1999, Mark Jeftovic wrote:
LMAO :)
I think the internet will muddle through without you.
You are correct. However, I unlike most do not believe that a system
which "muddle's through" is the best - and I am a creature of habit. I
demand the best, and second best I leave to
you never get it - do you.
On Thu, 11 Nov 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:
When you contribute productive programming to the internet community, then maybe
someone will take your little diatribe seriously.
it's not my department ...
As it is, it looks to me like you are just doing whatever
That's a curious statement. Vixie being the originator of a software daemon
that upwards of 90% of internet hosts use to resolve domain names (including
Vixie didn't originate it. He's just the current maintainer.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
"I see you've got yout
On 11 November 1999, "Richard J. Sexton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's a curious statement. Vixie being the originator of a software daemon
that upwards of 90% of internet hosts use to resolve domain names (including
Vixie didn't originate it. He's just the current maintainer.
...and,
pportunity.
Regards
Joe
- Original Message -
From: Joe Baptista [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 1999 5:29 PM
Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: well folks - more work for bind2000
you never get it - do you.
On Thu, 11 Nov 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:
PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 1999 5:29 PM
Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: well folks - more work for bind2000
you never get it - do you.
On Thu, 11 Nov 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:
When you contribute productive programming to the internet
On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, Ceo wrote:
I could have posted this to the list but,
I decided to write you direct. Many of your
posts reach me daily. I am aware of the activities
of ICANN. However, your postings are just that postings.
you should of posted it to the list - because i am. I find
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Joe and all,
Joe, I am in agreement with you here, thought I can understand this
fellows view as well. My overall view is the "If you don't stand for
something, you will stand for anything".
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, Ceo wrote:
I could have posted
On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, Jeff Williams wrote:
Joe, I am in agreement with you here, thought I can understand this
fellows view as well. My overall view is the "If you don't stand for
something, you will stand for anything".
Exactly. I so tired of living on a planet full of sheep who just
On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, Javier Rodriguez wrote:
Dear Joe:
Dear Joe - is reposding to you in the GA and ifwp. The IFWP message will
go through - and the Ga message will as always die in the big black
censorship hole administered by elisabeth.
I can stand with you to figth against the
Javier and all,
I agree in part with your sentiments here Javier. But it is also
even more important that the DNSO GA list is open to all. This
is not the case presently. If this is due to Elisabeth's mistakes,
than fine, let's correct them NOW. If however it is due to some
SELECTIVE
On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, Jeff Williams wrote:
Javier and all,
I agree in part with your sentiments here Javier. But it is also
even more important that the DNSO GA list is open to all. This
is not the case presently. If this is due to Elisabeth's mistakes,
than fine, let's correct them
Roberto and all,
Yes, Yes, yes, indeed CENSORSHIP is a VERY destructive
tactic indeed and should not be favored in any manner what so ever.
Unfortunately it is appearing that that is what the DNSO List Admin..
is doing therefore causing discontent and discord, not to mention
violating
On Thu, 11 Nov 1999, Joop Teernstra wrote:
At 02:55 PM 10/11/1999 -0500, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
Liability for reposting a comment as moderator that violates some national
law.
The proposed civil discourse rules for the IDNO (www.idno.org/discuss.htm)
return the
On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:
With a web based Polling Booth (www.idno.org/vote1) this becomes possible.
This method is fundamentally flawed, in that it permits a simple majority of
those active and concerned enough to vote to oust anyone with whom they do not
approve of
Joe and all,
Good point here Joe, and quite sisinctly stated. We all know that
there has been much discussion on this point in the past. It may be that
further discussion on this PROCESS point is something that the ICANN
and the DNSO doesn't want to occur. If so, that seems rather odd
and
One of the pleasures of being on this poor little raped planet is the fact
my fellow human brothers and sisters always manage to surprise me. my
life is a pleasure to enjoy, and these surprises - a joy.
Thank you Lord Thornton. In three hours the sun will be rising over the
vulcano and I will
Javier and all,
Good for you to have noticed this, as you put it, travesty of CENSORSHIP
that is being selectively for not officially or otherwise stated reason. It
is
indeed a gross example of now many of just how disgusting the ICANN
leadership has been and seemingly continuing to behave.
On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:
On 10-Nov-99 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree.
This obvious censorship is a travesty, and has invited the rude and
somewhat humorus poke in the eye that Mr. Baptista has landed us.
This wasn't censorship. It was removal of a CLEARLY
On Thu, 11 Nov 1999, Jeff Williams wrote:
William and all,
Java, in case you didn't know William has had a long standing
grudge against Joe Baptista. This is well documented on the DNSO
GA archives as well as the Domain Policy list archives and both the
IDNO and IFWP list archives as
It's damage control time. enter Roberto - stage left.
On Tue, 9 Nov 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am writing to you concerning the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list of which you and I
are members. The list is being censored. The only address
capable of
Joe and all,
Not only that, he doesn't know wht he is talking about either in
this instance. Just because one is recieving posts from the GA List
doesn't mean that your comment was false, as you stated it. But of course
this something that he might not know, and possibly Elizibeth may
not as
It looks to me like your message was broadcast to the ga list. However my
reply was not. The listadmin now only allows what she see as fit for
publication.
--
J. Baptista Planet Communications Computing Facility
Voice/Fax (212) 894-3704 ext.
no - i am getting mail from the ga - but i can't post to it. however the
listadmin allowed you to post.
--
J. Baptista Planet Communications Computing Facility
Voice/Fax (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033
Joe and all,
Yes indeed it does appear that you may be correct in that the DNSO
GA list is selectively censored or the DNSO list admin has some problems
with maintaining the DNSO GA list correctly. Again, although I have contacted
the DNSO list admin, Becky Burr, and Esther Dyson regarding
Dave and all,
Well under the circumstances I thought it was a rather precipitous
gag myself, and points up some of the concerns with the management of
the DNSO GA mailing list.
Joe, please keep up the good work, possibly this will draw some
attention to getting the CENSORSHIP problems with
William and all,
DNSO Admin. you might want to also add DSO.NET and DNSPOLICY.com
to your spammer filters as well as they are also housing several spammers
as well.
William X. Walsh wrote:
On 10-Nov-99 Dave Crocker wrote:
Lest anyone worry that Ms. Porteneuve had, perhaps, found the ICANN
Joe and all,
I am sure that most will understand. However you do have a few
such a William Walsh and Dave Crocker (The Crock) will have some
ax to grind here.
It seems to me that really who owes everyone an apology is
Becky Burr, Esther Dyson and the DNSO List admin. for mismanaging
the
Don't do that - your only hurting diebold and not me. I have already
fixed the machine name to properly format the machine ip to host name for
pccf.net.
This could really blow up into something really big. And William - once
again your only happy with contraversy. You scream about censorship
no problem at all Rick. Unfortunately - you will end up hearing from me
again. As long as the ga censorship continues - i'll end up taking grat
pleasure in bypassing it. and that will mean I'll bypass you kill file.
I'm the fist person who believes in kill files. I will protect you right
to
Well - it looks like the lawyers at the berkman center can post to the ga
list without censorship.
I wonder who else has this priviledge.
--
J. Baptista Planet Communications Computing Facility
Voice/Fax (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033
Notwithstanding the commercial applications for the new extended 63
character domain name, spare a thought for the welsh village that
previously could not register their own village domain name. However, there
is good news, they now claim possibly the longest .com name in history!
On 8 November 1999, Mark Henderson-Thynne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Notwithstanding the commercial applications for the new extended 63
character domain name, spare a thought for the welsh village that
previously could not register their own village domain name. However, there
is good
... enabling Internet Domain Name Registrations of up to 63
characters! This is 37 characters more than Network Solutions who
can only
currently register domain names up to 22 characters.
I must say that this is a bit of oddness - A "Domain Name" is composed
of a sequence of "labels"
Joe and all,
Yes it seems to be being censored for reasons I have yet to see an
announcement on to date. One has to wonder why? Is the DNSO
and ICANN afraid of something perhaps?
One also has to wonder why the NTIA/DOC has not exercised it's
authority under the principals of the white
Hi Kent,
Your version of history differs greatly
from my version. Rather than highlight
your inaccuracies, again and again, over
and over, I'll just wait for a definitive
ruling in a court of law.
[Anyone who's disappointed, can simply
read the previous versions of that debate
in one of the
What's really interesting is how Elizabeth is not that much on the ball.
It looks like she's manually posting what she approves. I wasted almost 2
hours before I forged the message using the cyber-lawyers header. She has
that filter wide open - so she obviously does not check the queue on a
Joe and all,
Yes I have notice this as well. It appears that Elizabeth does not even
read here E-Mail very often either, as I amongst at least 2 others have posted
concerns regarding the DNSO GA list problems. Hell of a way to run
a railroad, eh?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's really
Looks to me like someone isn't too scared or to weak to actually take action to
stop list disruption. Kudos to the DNSO Secretariat on this point.
On 08-Nov-99 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well - it looks like the lawyers at the berkman center can post to the ga
list without censorship.
I
You just don't get it - do you? By the way kudos on the end of
dnspolicy.com. Get a job ;-)
Regards
Joe
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:
Looks to me like someone isn't too scared or to weak to actually take action to
stop list disruption. Kudos to the DNSO Secretariat on
Darrell and all,
To my knowledge what Pauls is suggesting or seemingly suggesting
is categorically untrue. I have spoken to both Righard and Joe on the phone
and their voice prints do not match. Given that this is an expectable legal
method of determining identification or distinction
William and all,
Given your past personal attacks towards Joe, this comment should
come as no surprise to anyone.
William X. Walsh wrote:
Looks to me like someone isn't too scared or to weak to actually take action to
stop list disruption. Kudos to the DNSO Secretariat on this point.
Joe and all,
I believe that William Walsh has a job of sorts. It is doing individual
tax returns as I recall...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You just don't get it - do you? By the way kudos on the end of
dnspolicy.com. Get a job ;-)
Regards
Joe
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, William X. Walsh
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:
Just an FYI for those who are uninformed. PCCF effectively spammed all of
these people, and were subsequently added Paul Vixie's RBL list. Since they
seemed to hop IPs for a while, within the same /24, the enter /24 they were in
ended up being
On 08-Nov-99 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:
Just an FYI for those who are uninformed. PCCF effectively spammed all of
these people, and were subsequently added Paul Vixie's RBL list. Since they
seemed to hop IPs for a while, within the same /24, the
# [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Look - lizy did it again. I'll have to subscribe using a phoney email
account. For shame ;-)
.. and maybe post using ficticious headers ... oh the shame.
it weasn't spam. I have the results of the survey. They are interesting.
At 05:39 PM 11/8/99 -0500, you wrote:
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:
Just an FYI for those who are uninformed. PCCF effectively spammed all of
these people, and were subsequently added Paul Vixie's RBL
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
it weasn't spam. I have the results of the survey. They are interesting.
It certainly was. Perhaps you should mention that you host the spammer in
question Richard.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Richard and all,
Well Richard, William is now claiming that you and Joe are one in the
same person online anyway. Interesting Eh? I guess he forgot to take
his medication again...
Richard J. Sexton wrote:
it weasn't spam. I have the results of the survey. They are interesting.
At 05:39
Patrick and all,
He is? Whom might that be?
Patrick Greenwell wrote:
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
it weasn't spam. I have the results of the survey. They are interesting.
It certainly was. Perhaps you should mention that you host the spammer in
question Richard.
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
it weasn't spam. I have the results of the survey. They are interesting.
It certainly was. Perhaps you should mention that you host the spammer in
question Richard.
I am hosted by several
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:
On 09-Nov-99 Joe Baptista wrote:
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Jeff Williams wrote:
Richard and all,
Well Richard, William is now claiming that you and Joe are one in the
same person online anyway. Interesting Eh? I guess he forgot to take
At 04:12 PM 11/8/99 -0800, you wrote:
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
it weasn't spam. I have the results of the survey. They are interesting.
It certainly was. Perhaps you should mention that you host the spammer in
question Richard.
No, I don't "host" it. I provice secondary
Joe and all,
Yes indeed it is sad. It is somewhat surreal as well when someone sees,
goblins around every corner. But that seems to be William's preferred
territory unfortunately.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Jeff Williams wrote:
Richard and all,
Well Richard,
William and all,
Uh-Huh, sure William. I seem to remember YOU specifically making these
claims regarding several others on more than one occasion, including
Joe. Nice attempt, although weak at spinning...
William X. Walsh wrote:
On 09-Nov-99 Joe Baptista wrote:
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Jeff
At 09:12 PM 11/8/99 -0500, you wrote:
At 04:12 PM 11/8/99 -0800, you wrote:
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
it weasn't spam. I have the results of the survey. They are interesting.
It certainly was. Perhaps you should mention that you host the spammer in
question Richard.
No, I
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Mark Jeftovic wrote:
It's an the equivalent of an orbs relay test for nameservers.If it was
anybody else doing it it might even be construed as productive. This
isn't the case as Baptista has an acute credibility deficiency. This is
probably a result of his own antics,
Mark and all,
Thank you Mark for your frankness and straight forward reply here.
A refreshing change, to be sure. And it is good that you seem t also
have indicated contrary to William's contention that Joe and Richard
are one in the same person. Of course more reasonable people had
likely
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Jeff Williams wrote:
Mark and all,
Thank you Mark for your frankness and straight forward reply here.
A refreshing change, to be sure. And it is good that you seem t also
have indicated contrary to William's contention that Joe and Richard
are one in the same
Joe and all,
Indeed it is a shame that some of William Walsh's ilk should
continue his stampede to pre-justice as he does so often in
ways such as this one. His false aspersions are indeed troublesome
and uncalled for. But I suppose it is cross that we all must bare.
I feel sorry for both
701 - 800 of 4415 matches
Mail list logo
